Ex-communist Europe

Free speech in Russia

The new dissidents

IT COULD have been worse. After a two-year long trial, the organisers of the “Forbidden Art” exhibition in Moscow which infuriated the Orthodox Church could have gone to jail if the prosecutors had it all their way. Instead, Andrei Yerofeev, an art historian and curator of the exhibition and Yuri Samodurov, the director of the Sakharov museum where it was held, were fined 150,000 Roubles and 200,000 Roubles respectively for “inciting religious hatred”. The Economist wrote about this case and the exhibition in print and online.The face-saving compromise was partly the result of public protest stirred by Russian human rights activists, artists, writers, historians and anyone aware of the dangerous precedent set by this case. Foreign diplomats who talked to the Kremlin behind the scene also played their part. The Russian Minister of Culture intervened saying this was no matter for criminal justice and a spokesman for Kirill, the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church said that a jail sentence would be wrong.

As we wrote in our article, the exhibition consisted of works of art which were previously barred from other exhibition. It had placed religious imagery into highly non-religious context. (One picture showed a Russian general raping a soldier with the caption “Glory to Russia”; another placed an Order of Lenin medal in place of Christ's head.) But the works were concealed from public view by a fake wall and could be seen through a peephole placed above the human's height.

The exhibition offended not so much the true believers who would have avoided seeing it, but a group of militant religious radicals, who went out of their way to get offended. The prosecutors who took up the case alleged it was a continuation of the museum's “anti-state” and “anti-Orthodox” activity, equating the two.

Perhaps the Church (and the state) has realised that the fallout from jailing Mr Samodurov and Mr Yerofeev would be more damaging than the exhibition itself. But the verdict brings a sense of relief, rather than satisfaction. Relief because the two men who committed no criminal offence will not go to jail. But they were still found guilty by a court.

Andrei Zorin, Russia's leading historian and intellectual, who wrote to Eastern Approaches says that the decision to fine Mr Samodurov and Mr Yerofeev is the result of a heavy political compromise rather than of justice. This compromise is extremely fragile; it rests on the balance of powers rather than the rule of law and does not rule out a repeat of such a case.

As Mr Yerofeev said himself, “I am convinced that most people in the Kremlin…realise that this trial was completely wild, shameful and not needed for Russia….Yes, it is a compromise but a fine is, nevertheless, a fine and the very fact of conviction is a bad diagnosis.”

"But in Russia we consider it (religion) a public matter, and take any mockery of religion, or profane expression, as a crime against public opinion."

In short, any criticism of the view of the majority is considered “a crime against public opinion”.

If the opinion of the majority can't be criticized publically, then of course the majority will never change its mind in anything. The only way for society to change opinion is to be run top down by a strong leader. Democracy is totally impossible with such a mindset. I wonder to what extent the academic Alexander Dugin, and you "Fourthwall", are aware that you are promoting a fascist political system?

I can’t understand why fascism would be a particularly valuable Russian ideology just because you have suffered more than most from this plague in history. Freedom of speech and democracy are universal values, which should be felt as Russian as European or American. This is the only way forward, if Russia is to develop and modernize.

That is the thing with you Americans (Westerners). You want everyone to go bye your standards. Your standard are the measuring stick. But we say no. We have our standards. We have our values, what matters to you may not matter the same to us and until you understand that, terrorism will always be a problem, hatred for America will keep growing.

It is high time you realized the world is flattening. We live in a post-American world.

Recommended for you. The World is Flat, Thomas Friedman; The Post-American World, Fareed Zakaria,

What exactly is the West "imposing" here? This is a British newspaper on an American domain, and you're splitting hairs over the difference between religion and majority public opinion. You're so used to being told what to do that you can't even see something like detached intellectual criticism for what it is! It's all "hate speech" or just plain old dissent to you, isn't it?

No, don't worry about the West imposing their dangerous foreign ideas. All we can do is sit back and lament how close Russia once came to finally seeing the light.

The Economist would do well to interview BOTH sides of a story, rather than parade their Western opinion as factual news. This is a quote from Alexander Dugin, a Moscow University professor regarded as one of the leading intellectuals of Russian nationalism. He claims the key issue behind the trial is not about art but Russia's essential differences with the West.

"In the West they take tolerance as the main principle, and see religion as a private matter. But in Russia we consider it a public matter, and take any mockery of religion, or profane expression, as a crime against public opinion. These are our Russian standards, and Samodurov and Yerofeyev are Russians who committed their acts in Russia, and have been judged by a Russian court.... I would advise Western public opinion not to try to impose your values on us."

Cultures don't have rights. Individuals do. Oppression isn't a "different value", it's simply wrong even if you you do live in a place with stupid cultural values. I guess slaughtering Cossacks is ok because it's part of your culture too? Let me guess, this is where you get all butt-hurt because people shouldn't say mean things about great and glorious mother Russia? If you bothered to read this newspaper in full you would realize that is routinely critical of western countries, particularly when they disregard individual rights, and those commenters don't get all cry-baby when someone critiques their government being stupid.

In your reply you provide the perfect picture of the Western mindset imposing itself on a different culture.

You wrote "In short, any criticism of the view of the majority is considered 'a crime against public opinion'." The quote I provided spoke of mockery and profane expression directed specifically at religion, not a majority public opinion. This was not a case of constructive criticism leveled against an institution one disagrees with; the images on display were spiteful and filled with hatred. Substitute an image Barack Obama raping an American soldier (to appeal to your Western viewpoint) and it would be deemed hate speech in Europe and America. Russians see slander against religion the way Westerners see slander against minorities.

Dugin captured it perfectly: "These are our Russian standards, and Samodurov and Yerofeyev are Russians who committed their acts in Russia, and have been judged by a Russian court." To impose your perspective on a part of the world that you have no part in seems far more fascist than a country deciding for itself where it draws the line on hate speech.

While some parts of Russia head towards progress, there is clear evidence that remnants of Soviet style reaction remain. And what better example than art, it is ironic though that instead of humiliating the Kremlin, it is towards the church.
When some started to question whether this decade was lost for the russian art scene, this comes into light (not that is was under veils) to show that there is indeed something cooking...

It's important to keep focused on the real issue(s) here. Is post-Soviet Russia a deeply religious (Orthodox) country? Is religion offended? I doubt it. The real issue here is that the centralistic Putinist state power is offended by dissidents - a well-known "problem" throughout Russian history. The State (=God) is offended, not religion in itself.

Then there's Dugin and the other state-centric pseudo-intellectual prostitutes (also known as "intelligentsia"). Their core ideology is anti-Westernism, their main motivation is a psychological and historical grudge (or, rather, hatred) against the Western world. The orthodox religion is only one of several Potemkin villages.

"In the West they take tolerance as the main principle, and see religion as a private matter. But in Russia we consider it a public matter, and take any mockery of religion, or profane expression, as a crime against public opinion."

Hmm, this is a strange logic. The West, Russia or anywhere on earth, religion (ie religion in general) IS a private matter at the personal level, isn't it?

But wait. The "it" in the second sentence is not religion in general but the Russian Orthodox!

He is simply saying that the Russian Orthodox is the state religion. Eureka!

This is an interesting moment for the modern Russian creative intelligentsia. At a time when critics focus on a lack of unique cultural expression in Russia, this marks in many ways a reprisal of the historical trend of Russian dissidence so prevalent in 19th and 20th Century art/literature/prose, etc. It will be interesting, as always to see future developments in this case.

With apologies to the handful of Christians in the country, as an aetheistic society Russia is thus still a God-less country.
And whichever way the situation arose or was dealt with we shouldn't be surprised. But the situation is much the same as with the rest of Europe.

"... my original issue with the Economist's article was not the opinion itself but the attempt to pass off that opinion as news. Put it in the opinion section or remove the bias."

The blurring of boundaries between opinions and news has always been a hallmark of the blogosphere (this article is found in one the The Economist's blogs).

"Just because the organization under attack is large or widely accepted doesn't mean it doesn't qualify for equal protection. [...]It's meaningless to protect the powerless from the powerful if you don't afford the same rights to the other party."

Sounds too Orwellian for my taste. Obviously, if the powerless and the powerful have "the same rights", the power-equation remains unaltered. I believe this is part of a larger Russian cultural logic of inversion, as when the Russian government prohibits alternative WWII historiography with reference to Holocaust-denial in the West.

Where Russia is at issue, much does not make sense to peoples with long histories of liberal democracy. I should not wonder if the same sort of state intervention in the arts took place during the Romanov era. The issue seems to be peculiarly Russian.

“The quote I provided spoke of mockery and profane expression directed specifically at religion, not a majority public opinion. This was not a case of constructive criticism leveled against an institution one disagrees with...”

What about Russian gay rights demonstrators, who are arrested when they try to bolster human rights? What about Russian political parties, which are not granted the right to demonstrate? The definition “mockery”, which should be prohibited, seems quite wide...

Also, apparently to display that artwork had two purposes. The minor one seems to involve a discussion on religion, while the major one was to keep the boundaries of freedom of speech open for the future.

You wrote:

“Substitute an image Barack Obama raping an American soldier (to appeal to your Western viewpoint) and it would be deemed hate speech in Europe and America.”

In western countries I think it would be hard for you to find a judge or jury sentencing an artist who has merely depicted the face of the national leader in a painting in such a pose. The same goes for a museum director, who is putting such art on display.

You wrote:

“Dugin captured it perfectly: ‘These are our Russian standards, and Samodurov and Yerofeyev are Russians who committed their acts in Russia, and have been judged by a Russian court.’ To impose your perspective on a part of the world that you have no part in seems far more fascist than a country deciding for itself where it draws the line on hate speech.”

In short, Russians, such as Samodurov and Yerofeyev, are not allowed to express themselves, because they are Russians and in Russia. No one else is allowed to have any opinion about this, because they are not Russians or not in Russia. Your logic seems to have covered all corners. Beautiful, no one is allowed to air their opinion. This is your definition of freedom of speech. And you call mine fascist...

I consider Samodurov and Yerofeyev Russian heroes who despite huge personal risks are trying to redefine Russian nationalism to something positive. The same way as Japanese, Italian and German intellectuals during the last 65 years have redirected their respective nationalisms from racism and violence to embrace and support human rights.

Also, I have more part in that particular part of the world than you seem to assume. Actually it’s quite likely that I with your definition have more right than you to discuss Russia. It’s just a pity that I for various reasons can’t disclose who is really behind this pen name. Anyway, by my definition anyone has the right to protect human rights everywhere so who I am isn’t really relevant.

By the way, when considering your absurd logic this old Soviet anecdote comes to my mind:

“Two judges are leaving the courthouse together and start chatting:

- You can’t imagine what a funny political anecdote I just heard.
- What are you waiting for? Please go ahead and tell me!
- Sorry, I can’t. I just sentenced the story-teller to ten years imprisonment.”

Don’t you think that it’s time for Russia to mentally move on and grant everyone full freedom of speech?